AA, it's the exact same concept in soccer as hockey, except it's not done as often (usually if there is a corner kick or deep possession). Down a goal, in extra time (usually no more than a minute or two remaining), it's a sound strategy when you need a tie.

Does anyone know if J.P. Dellacamera is going to be doing work during Euro 2008 or will they stick with Derek Rae? While I prefer Dellacamera, Derek Rae is fine. But if I ever hear Dave O'Brien call another soccer game....

seems pointless in soccer? so it's okay to lose by a goal, instead of doing something to tie the game and maybe win? good point awful, just sit there and accept the loss. LOL let me guess -- you like old school coaches like Chuck Noll, Sparky Anderson, and Red Auerbach. instead of original thinkers who progress the game.

I don't know much about soccer, so take this as more of a question than a defense of AA's original comment.

Don't some soccer leagues determine ties by goals scored or goals against? If that is the case then taking out your goalie there, makes it a bit riskier than in hockey...along with the %'s jay pointed out.

The whole thing just seems like a bad idea to me. It's one thing if it's the last play of the game, but with a good bit of time left on the clock it seems dumb. Even on a corner kick, one extra guy isn't going to help all that much....he's really just taking up space and/or pushing someone else out of the box.

Now if you could make the sub while in play, a la Hockey then it might work, but you can't do that in Soccer.

It does work at times, it is not a common practice, and of course, like hockey, you leave yourself open to a long counter attack. But it does give you a body advantage on a corner. And no, the goalie will not likely get back into the net, that's why it's used when time is about to expire. It's a last ditch effort, much like the Hail Mary or the half court buzzer beater. When it works, it's fantastic, but the majority of the time it doesn't. That doesn't mean it's not worth the effort.

And yes, goal differential does matter. Losing by one goal is much better than losing by two. Suppose that Chelsea and Man U had tied for points at the end of the season. Man U would have still won the title because of the ridiculous number of goals they scored this season.

Ultimately it's a nice goal, and an impressive one, but his goal from the halfway line against Wimbledon in 96 is superior, simply because he beats the keeper

AA - I'm not certain, but I think in some hockey leagues (possibly the NHL included) it's illegal to send a new goaltender onto the ice during play. At the very least, I've never seen it attempted, and I could have sworn I've heard mention of the rule once. Not sure it would matter, anyway - there's no way a goalie in all that gear is getting back in time, and it's not illegal for one of your other players to try to bat the puck away with his hands (as long as he doesn't close his hand on it or cover it in the crease).

The big risk, as noted, is that goal differential is almost always the first tiebreaker in soccer leagues, and so if you do this regularly your chances of picking up even a single point in the standings are poor while your goal differential almost certainly takes a hit.

Pushing the goalie forward for the tie in the MLS is a good decision when down a single goal. Goal difference in the MLS is the 2nd tie-breaker for playoffs. The 1st being head to head, meaning it is more important to get 1 point for the tie than none for the loss.

You don't see scores like this more often because you need something really stupid to happen like the losing team to head the ball back and away from goal to the opposing team's uncovered player so they can launch an unopposed counter. Plus no one on the KC team even thought about challenging beckham to prevent the shot from being taken.... lazy.